17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #16

[TonyGatto]

Respectfully, he wasn't told to wait for police to arrive. It's another false statement that seems to be taken as fact in this case.

See...this is the kind of thing that just ticks people off. No, he wasn't told to "wait for police." When the dispatcher learned from GZ that he was following TM, he was told "we don't need you to do that." It's a game. But a jury won't play that game. They won't split hairs. What do you think the dispatcher meant when he said "we don't need you to do that?" When that dispatcher takes the stand, and the tape is played in open court, and the dispatcher is then asked "what did you mean when you said 'we don't need you to do that', what do you speculate his answer will be?

 

[Sensei]

Respectfully, he wasn't told to wait for police to arrive. It's another false statement that seems to be taken as fact in this case.

Yet he was told, " We don't need you to do that!" and considering the fact that he was told during the neighborhood watch meeting that for neighborhood watch you are only supposed to watch. Are you now trying to say that because he was not explicitly told "STOP, do not approach that he didn't understand what he was being told, and at this time the dispatch did not know he had a gun!

I have no doubt that he knew exactly what he was being told and ignored it.
And considering that he had a permit to carry a concealed weapon and it is clearly posted on the Florida Division of Licensing site 2. The amount of force that you use to defend yourself must not be excessive under the circumstances.

Never use deadly force in self-defense unless you are afraid that if you don't, you will be killed or seriously injured;
Verbal threats never justify your use of deadly force;
If you think someone has a weapon and will use it unless you kill him, be sure you are right and are not overreacting to the situation.
3. The law permits you to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense. Carrying a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman or a "good samaritan."[/QUOTE]

he had to read these thing and sign that he understood what he was reading to get that permit, so it is disingenuous to me to say that he did NOT know that following someone with a loaded weapon, someone that he gave every indication to 911 he believed had a loaded weapon was the WRONG thing to do.

So yes I have no doubt that his actions could be charactarized as being told to wait for LE, IMO JMHO and stuff.

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

 

[stmarysmead]

Whether or not TM respected women or what names he wanted his friends to call him is not relevant to me. GZ knew nothing about any of that and it would not be a justification. TM did not have to be anywhere near perfect to have the right to walk home without getting shot.

It's relevant to me because if there was a struggle...you cannot just look at GZ and dissect his past and attitudes without looking at the OTHER PERSON who was in that struggle. TM had increasingly been getting into trouble. His Twitter account tells us a lot about him IN HIS OWN WORDS. If it is fair to judge GZ every word and action...and not do the same to TM?

Can the person who wrote those tweets, many angry and profane...been upset enough to decide to beat up GZ? It is possible, despite whatever those who would make TM "perfect" choose to ignore. If he is dead because of a fight that HE initiated, then that is a HUGE part of this story.

WE DON"T KNOW YET, do we? So we need as much info on both these people. TM is an excellent source of info on HIMSELF. If there is ANY possibility that TM was the aggressor in the FIGHT..and there is...everything needs to be known.

 

[LambChop]

Respectfully, he wasn't told to wait for police to arrive. It's another false statement that seems to be taken as fact in this case.

GZ knew not to follow. LE did not tell him to follow, they said he didn't have to which is not the same as "giving him permission". By saying "okay" he acknowledged he knew exactly what the dispatcher was telling him to do. He had 14 weeks of LE training in police procedures. Once he called LE it was their responsibility to handle to call, no authority was ever handed over to GZ. Tell me where in those calls did LE ask GZ to follow the suspect so they would be able to find him. LE said meet the patrol car by the mailboxes. That was clear. LE dispatch would have never hung up with GZ if they thought he did not understand what he was being told and not to follow.

Since this community is a member of NWP they were all instructed on what to do. Do not follow, no weapons...it's in the manual, they all agreed to abide by the rules. Why would LE suspect GZ knowing the rules would have needed special instructions NOT TO FOLLOW when he acknowledged he understood. jmo

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Respectfully, he wasn't told to wait for police to arrive. It's another false statement that seems to be taken as fact in this case.

Not in those words but when the dispatcher asked <modsnip> George if he was following, <modsnip> said YEP, dispatcher said, we don't need you to do that!

Should the dispatcher have given a more direct order of, Do not follow, or is what he said enough to deter <modsnip> George from pursuit...:maddening:

 

[kline]

See...this is the kind of thing that just ticks people off. No, he wasn't told to "wait for police." When the dispatcher learned from GZ that he was following TM, he was told "we don't need you to do that." It's a game. But a jury won't play that game. They won't split hairs. What do you think the dispatcher meant when he said "we don't need you to do that?" When that dispatcher takes the stand, and the tape is played in open court, and the dispatcher is then asked "what did you mean when you said 'we don't need you to do that', what do you speculate his answer will be?

Absolutely.I dont see any other way it could be interpreted then "dont follow him. Wait for the police."

 

[mikeysmommom]

Someday we need to have a respectful conversation about this issue of profiling.

If a community of hard working people starts having burgularies, vandalism etc...and, looking at the STATISTICS...the COLD FACTS...of these crimes...there is a pattern that the description of the people involved... matches that of the Amish community nearby...unfortunately, IMO, residents will begin to be watchful of Amish looking strangers in their area...partcularly at night,or at times when these acts of crime or vandalism are taking place. Does that mean they HATE Amish? No, it means they are reacting to the REALITY of the crime statistics in their neighborhood.

They did not wake up fearing Amish kids....they are reacting to the REALITY of crime in the place they live. Maybe it is people who look like they are Bangladesh and wear traditional Indian garb committing , BY STATISTICS, the crime in another area. People will then..."profile" differently. Is this outrageous?

I would like to see a 3 three year printout of crime statitics in that condo area and in Sanford, before I condemn GZ.

The way to solve the problem is not to blame the people who are having their property defaced, their homes burgalarized. They are desparate to be safe. You cannot FORCE them to reject the reality of the situation in their neighborhood.

The problem is solved by all good people facing facts.

In all the hysteria and the condemnation of GZ...all the political posturing about Black Children being hunted down and killed by Whites...have we seen any statistics? How many Black youngsters are tragically killed by Hispanic Neighbor Watch Captains every year? How many by other Black children? You can read the statistics for yourself.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/bvvc.pdf

This is what is apalling and deceptive about politicans like this one (link follows)... the softball questions the media asks of her. WHO REALLY is hunting down and killing 4/5 of Black homicide victims? Not WHITE HISPANIC Watch Captains. Not other Whites. If she wants to stop this TRAGEDY...she can start by dealing with REALITY. WE Should ALL join together to deal with THE TRUTH. Not this hysterical nonsense! How many children will it save if she is "solving" the wrong problem? Who does that help? HER...to get re-elected? She is not saving the vast majority of children she claims to care about...by concentrating on this one case. She claims Black Children are being "hunted like dogs in the street" Then STATISCALLY, she should speak the truth as to who really is hunting them.

Then maaybe we can all, as part of the human family, work to solve the issue.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/...h-was-murder-congresswoman.html#storylink=cpy

The politiization of this case is already having a backlash. Just in a few weeks,at a meeting of a diverse group of people of all backgrounds...I have seen an amazing change. Sympathy has been replaced by a counter reaction to all the hysteria, bile, and hate shown to GZ. It may feel good but it is counterproductive.

Nevertheless, for a politican...to say this "statisically rare" case proves Blacks are being hunted likedogs by Whites is outrageous. This woman is NOT THE FIRST to say things like this. It's offensive and untrue...yet unchallenged. It is doing TM's family no favors.

Why is this rhetoric being tolerated by thse who support TM? Statiistics prove it is a LIE. Where is the outrage?

WHERE ARE TM's supporters when lies are told?

Or is anything A-OK? ReallY?

The question of who is really killing all these Black young men...and the reasons that GZ might have looked an an innocent young man with suspicion...MAY BE avoided by the media, and on message Boards that do not allow a broader discussion...but the actual STATISTICS will no doubt become part of any trial...and is ALREADY what people are discussing out in the real world. People who WANT to save those children slaughtered on the street every day...are not going to be manipulated by Politican's outrageous distortions. Her words are vile, not only because they are lies...but because she is deliberately avoiding real issue....so she does not keep one Black child safer.

Oh wait...maybe the one..who every 10 years is shot in a victimmized community by a Neighborhood Watch Captain.

But thoysands will keep dying from her comfortable denial of FACT.

IMO You hit the nail on the head IMO The Martin Families pain is being exploited for others Gain,and IMO Does nothing to save all the children dying everyday.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Why was a picture that was years old shown for weeks... a picture of a child, not the picture of how TM looked as a young adult...why was that HOAX perpetrated by the media for weeks. TM chose a picture for his Twitter account. HE CHOSE IT. It was not used. A picture of him, years younger...as a child was used.

ABC initially says...no wounds to GZ...it takes days for them to gt the...(wait for it!) really, really ar out idea...to ENLARGE and AMPLIFY the film. Oh gee, now they see injuries.

Was this voice analysis done ...scream to scream? No. Scream vs normal voice tones. Also, why was a comparison NOT done to TM. Maybe because if they took TM's voice vs the scream...they would not get a match there either. And that wouldn't help push the story in the direction they want.

This has all happened before...and the media came out looking ridiculous.

I would add that the picture of GZ was basically a mugshot with him scowling, as opposed to the smiling well dressed pic of him that came out later. And the use of "white hispanic" was interesting as well. I wonder how many times people have been identified that way before in the news.

 

[TonyGatto]

It's relevant to me because if there was a struggle...you cannot just look at GZ and dissect his past and attitudes without looking at the OTHER PERSON who was in that struggle. TM had increasingly been getting into trouble. His Twitter account tells us a lot about him IN HIS OWN WORDS. If it is fair to judge GZ every word and action...and not do the same to TM?

Can the person who wrote those tweets, many angry and profane...been upset enough to decide to beat up GZ? It is possible, despite whatever those who would make TM "perfect" choose to ignore. If he is dead because of a fight that HE initiated, then that is a HUGE part of this story.

WE DON"T KNOW YET, do we? So we need as much info on both these people. TM is an excellent source of info on HIMSELF. If there is ANY possibility that TM was the aggressor in the FIGHT..and there is...everything needs to be known.

Do you realize NONE of that, TM's tweets, his suspension, what he said about women will be permitted to come in at trial but all of GZ's stuff WILL be? allowed

 

[cityslick]

Here we go...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/...publicans-say-enough-20120403,0,1619162.story

 

[gxm]

They have many fears. One of my AA friends lives in a small town in Texas - Lubbock. He's 6'3" and a hot mess. While he was going to medical school 20 years ago, he worked at night. After work he would jog through his nice, mostly white neighborhood - many nights cop cars would pass by him slowly, then take another pass. He got stopped all the time because he drove a nice car. When he would stop by Walmart at midnight on the way home, he could feel people watching him and he'd mess with them, acting sketchy - it's what they expected. He would walk by cars in a parking lot at night and hear door locks engaging. When we'd go out together people would stare and smile as if they were ok with it - once when we went to see Les Miserables in Houston, three white guys walked behind us making comments about (racial slur) and white girls. Saddest to me was the time I introduced him to one of my friends - she asked what he did for a living, he said he was in medical school and her first reaction was to laugh, and then caught herself. Other people would always feel like the stupid thing to say would be, "I have a lot of black friends". He'd say, "yeah? What are their names?" hahaha - stumped 1/2 of them.

Another good friend is high up in the space program (was), he called me once while driving in Houston - he had a convertible something - he said the cool thing about the convertible is when he decided to act like the crazy (slur) speeding down the road, people got out of the way because they thought he had a gun, of course he was kidding, but he could. He was stopped a lot. Once, he was put up against the back of his car with two cops telling him they knew he was lying about where he had just been - there'd been a robbery close by - they detained him for two hours - even after telling them who he was. Sadly, he and my other friend were used to it and hardly worth mentioning at the end of the day.

You know what both of them agree upon when it comes to racism? They're way more comfortable with the outspoken, honest racist. They know exactly where they stand. They have both said it's the racists who act like they're not racist, that scare them. AA's instinctively know the difference.

Both agree a racist would do just what GZ is being accused of in the media - and a 17 yr. old whose been told all his life the white man is not to be trusted, would do just what Zimmerman said Trayvon did.

IMO, one only has to turn on the television in the past three weeks to see nothing has changed - white and AA children are still being told why they should fear each other. This case is the perfect storm.

BBM.

This has always perplexed me. Why would anyone notice, much less care, that a stranger locks their car door? Why do black men think this is some significant sign of racism? I'm a habitual door locker, I'll lock my car doors even when they're already locked. And anybody could be walking by: a group of white-haired white men, a young woman with stroller, a group of teenagers. It's a habit that my husband, the driving safety instructor, drilled into my head. IMO, someone locking their car doors is none of my business; it's the most non-confrontational, non-slight that I can imagine. IMO, when people call this behavior "racist" they alienate a silent but significant portion of the population.

Years ago, I worked with a black man who one day was telling us how frightened he was when driving alone in the South because of the danger of drawing hostile attention. I looked him in the eye and said "That's how I feel every day." You should have seen his expression as the penny dropped.

Lastly, IMO, anyone who acts "sketchy" to antagonize people is a jerk.

JMO, OMO, and :moo:

 

[Concerned Papa]

Irregardless of the merits of criminal profiling, one way or the other, George Zimmerman is not qualified to make rhe determination of profile assesment. He has no training. He has demonstrated no proficiency.

His lack of qualification to evaluate a threat was demonstrated throughout the duration of the 911 call. His statements of "he's up to no good" and "he's just looking around at the houses" prove, not only, the inability to make a correct assesment of a situation, but additionally shows a propensity to lie in order to bolster his prejudicial, ego fueled, assertions. The calculation of time and distance established in the 911 call clearly shows a direct, purposeful path of movement on the part of Trayvon Martin. There was NO wandering around "looking at houses" as described by Zimmerman to bolster his representations of nefarious intent on TM's part.

I see nothing to make me see anything beyond a man with an ego and a gun who killed an innocent child.

He should pay for that crime.

 

[Elley Mae]

If TM jumped him...if he was beating him...THAT is also a contributing factor. To just condemn a man for following...until we know if there was a confrontation, is not justice for anyone.

I'm aware that people have chosen sides, without complete information...with the easy path of deciding anything that favors GZ is a "cover-up", "police ineptitude", a huge conspiracy, or just all about race. It has become predictable to read. Any news favoring GZ...is immediately discarded. The idea that TM is anything but perfect is IMPOSSIBLE. Anything from TM's Twitter account...his own words, his attitudes, the name HE CHOSE for himself, the picture he CHOSE for himself is disrespectful. Well, you cannot disrespect anyone with their own words...their own opinions about women...teir own choices in what they want Friends to call them...and the picture THEY THINK best represents WHO THEY ARE. That's the person GZ came face to face with that night. Not the media's portrayal. TM's OWN portrayal...in his own words!

Thank You

 

[cityslick]

I would add that the picture of GZ was basically a mugshot with him scowling, as opposed to the smiling well dressed pic of him that came out later. And the use of "white hispanic" was interesting as well. I wonder how many times people have been identified that way before in the news.

Article on how the media has covered this case...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-trayvon-media-20120401,0,1199315.story

 

[TonyGatto]

I would add that the picture of GZ was basically a mugshot with him scowling, as opposed to the smiling well dressed pic of him that came out later. And the use of "white hispanic" was interesting as well. I wonder how many times people have been identified that way before in the news.

So what do you think the dispatcher meant when he said "we don't need you to do that?"

 

[Etilema]

Whether or not TM respected women or what names he wanted his friends to call him is not relevant to me. GZ knew nothing about any of that and it would not be a justification. TM did not have to be anywhere near perfect to have the right to walk home without coming face to face with someone with a deadly aim.

I agree with you. But I think the reason people want to bring that stuff in is that they are speculating on the likelihood that TM would have responded to GZ by proactively attacking him. Some people would not put up with a guy following and questioning them and would, in fact, deck the guy. Other people would be in fear and just try to calm the situation and get away. By looking into TM's general attitudes, they are trying to get an idea of which way TM was more likely to have reacted.

JMO

 

[cityslick]

This is what I don't understand about the SYG law and perhaps someone can it explain it to me.

GZ starts walking after TM and then approaches and asks TM 'what are you doing here'. Words are exchanged and TM attacks GZ. Is the SYG law void because GZ actually got out and approached TM with a question?

I'm not saying this is how it went down, but if it did go down like that, how does the SYG law apply?

 

[suzihawk]

If TM jumped him...if he was beating him...THAT is also a contributing factor. To just condemn a man for following...until we know if there was a confrontation, is not justice for anyone.

I'm aware that people have chosen sides, without complete information...with the easy path of deciding anything that favors GZ is a "cover-up", "police ineptitude", a huge conspiracy, or just all about race. It has become predictable to read. Any news favoring GZ...is immediately discarded. The idea that TM is anything but perfect is IMPOSSIBLE. Anything from TM's Twitter account...his own words, his attitudes, the name HE CHOSE for himself, the picture he CHOSE for himself is disrespectful. Well, you cannot disrespect anyone with their own words...their own opinions about women...teir own choices in what they want Friends to call them...and the picture THEY THINK best represents WHO THEY ARE. That's the person GZ came face to face with that night. Not the media's portrayal. TM's OWN portrayal...in his own words!

We DO know there was a confrontation. If Zimmerman hadn't been following him as directed there would have been no confrontation.

Trayvon wasn't targeted and confronted based on his Twitter account or how he chose to portrayed himself on the internet. Zimmerman had no way of knowing that.

 

[LambChop]

There's no evidence of his father using his influence in any way, effectively or ineffectively to help GZ. How exactly would the conversation go? How does a magistrate intimidate police into covering up a supposed murder?

I would think they would start at the level of their authority, past or present, and let it work it's way down. It's the way it has always worked in the past. jmo

 

[2goldfish]

I am trying to be very careful with what I type, so apologies in advance if this is a bit cryptic...

All of us who are white would love to believe that "white privilege" and the oppressive black experience ended generations ago.

Consider, however, that any older black person you meet, no older than some of us posting here, grew up in a nation in which the police would arrest them for daring to sit in the white man's seat on the bus, or drink from the white man's water fountain, or sit in the white man's chair. And if that black got uppity, if he forgot his place, he was liable to be murdered and those police he is expected to call today didn't even consider it a crime.

Distant past? The governor of my state, Texas, a former 2012 candidate for President, owns a camp that until recently had a sign on the front drive of his hunting camp calling it "Camp N*****head."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...charged-name/2011/10/01/gIQAOhY5DL_story.html

It's better than it was, obviously, but we have a long way to go still. And in my opinion the first step is to admit we have a problem and the second is to challenge those who with to perpetrate this evil and refuse to tolerate it frm anyone.

In my opinion.

amen, amen, amen, and the greatest hell yes of any post in this thread.